Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is a very fun and easy way of vetting Trump... watch a marathon of SNL for the last 30+ years... vetting serves no point when your candidate just had a WWE match and was part of such majestic headlines as "Bitch, leave my husband alone"... NY post litteraly ran that headline in the 80s, in a story of Trump being busted cheating on his wife, by taking his mistress to his wife's favorite resort... where... shocker... he was busted...

Vulnerability scans aren't about finding the obvious things like that. Everyone knows that Trump has had failed marriages and has cheated on his wives.

Vulnerability scans are about digging deep into the really dark shit that isn't currently known but could be brought to light and used against the candidate. Things like the "grab em by the pussy" tape for example. You can't tell me that the people on his staff wouldn't have liked to know about that before it was being shown on every News Program in the world. Or The RNC for that matter.

[DeadmanWalking]

People should of known there would be trouble when in one of his divorces his lawyer stated in court, "it's not possible to rape your wife."

[Garnier Fructis]

I wouldn't call it spite voting, more basic strategy. Trump is the enemy of their enemy.

ISIS is also the enemy of my enemy (since they're basically the enemy of everyone). But I wouldn't support them; no sane person would.

Just because Trump is the enemy of their enemy doesn't make it even remotely acceptable to vote on that basis. This is the presidency, with real life consequences, not a 'har har we sure stuck it to 'em!' game.

[PACOX]

Received my ballot today, is it too early to decide who to vote for?

[LilSaihah]

Just because Trump is the enemy of their enemy doesn't make it even remotely acceptable to vote on that basis. This is the presidency, with real life consequences, not a 'har har we sure stuck it to 'em!' game.

Plenty of people are finding it entirely acceptable to vote for Hillary because they oppose Trump. In a two-party system, voting against a candidate is entirely viable, and commendable according to some.

Maybe if you're a shit person yourself you would think that. I would argue that not even the majority of people have serious skeletons in their closet, but you certainly can't say every single person does.

They don't have to be major. They might not even need to be real. According to leaks (I know, questionable credibility) the DNC was tossing up the idea of attacking Bernie on atheism during the primaries.

I think you read that wrong. Funny that you instinctively associated Trump as the "possible pervert".

Possible transexual/transvestite pervert, no less. Maybe we should photoshop him into that pussy-bow dress his wife was wearing.

[ringpriest]

I don't see it like that. He had to have known how he was seen in the public eye. No one thought he had a chance in hell just 2 years ago. Why would someone, with the very public history of Trump need vetting? A waste of resources that would return saying he isn't suited to win?

I believe that Trump ran the odds and this was his best shot. His past didn't mater, but who he was running against did. Hillary has been the presumptive nominee for 10 years, even even when she lost. He couldn't run after Bush, which would just be idiotic (sorry McCain) for any republican. Then the odds were slim for an incumbent.

Now comes 2016... GOP is in the middle of inner war with Tea Party, puts up 12 nominees, with 0 enthusiasm for the guy that should win, Bush. His opponent is likely Hillar, who has been campaigned against for 10 years by GOP and is undoubtedly one of the least liked candidates in a very long time. This was his best shot...

Like I keep saying... Trump is just about the only candidate that Hillary can beat, but that's true the other way as well. Hillary was the best shot he will ever have. No vetting would have changed that... this was ani-Hillary and not a pro-Trump campaign...

When it comes to Trump and Hillary being each other's preferred opponents, that's true... but the magnitude of the imbalance between them has recently been made glaringly apparent: Trump is the guy who shows up to a gunfight and hides behind a barrel, chortling about how he's brought a pair of Uzis - while he's so busy patting himself on the back about how clever he is, he's too stupid to realize that if he can break the rules, so can his opponent... who just rolled into town with a tank company and may have an airstrike loitering just over the horizon.

[Garnier Fructis]

Plenty of people are finding it entirely acceptable to vote for Hillary because they oppose Trump. In a two-party system, voting against a candidate is entirely viable, and commendable according to some.

Oh, I know. But you didn't say they were voting against a candidate because find they candidate unacceptable, but because they think 'the MSM' wants that candidate to win.

That is voting out of spite. We aren't voting against Trump because the alt right likes Trump. We're voting against Trump because of the candidate himself.

[Gray_Matter]

I dunno if that's really a fair assessment. She was expected to run for President because reasons, and those reasons also made her a target. I think the email scandal at least has some merit to it. I don't think there's a causative relationship between her likelihood of presidential candidacy and the 'witch hunt'.

The email scandal only arose because of the Benghazi investigations and not the first one of those either. It was like the 7th or 8th. My point is just that the focus changes when you are vying for that position. Put Rubio/etc as the GOP candidate and there would have been some serious dirt digging going on there. If people say a lie enough times then it sticks. I am not saying that's whats going on now, just that others would have also come in for some targeting. Just remember what happened in the GOP primary. Little Rubio, Lying Ted, Low Energy Bush, etc. There just has to be some smoke and it turns into a raging brush fire.

[anyaka21]

Oh, I know. But you didn't say they were voting against a candidate because find they candidate unacceptable, but because they think 'the MSM' wants that candidate to win.

That is voting out of spite. We aren't voting against Trump because the alt right likes Trump. We're voting against Trump because of the candidate himself.

By the same token, a lot of people are voting Trump because they are voting against Hillary.

[LilSaihah]

By the same token, a lot of people are voting Trump because they are voting against Hillary.

I don't think that's Garnier's point, I'm pretty confident that they are saying that this third body which is neither candidate is not a good reason to vote against X candidate. For example, saying "David Duke is voting for Donald Trump, so I'm voting for Hillary, because fuck David Duke" is not really a valid reason to not support Trump (god knows you have plenty of reasons not to support Trump as it is).

[anyaka21]

Don't you think a Presidential debate should be more... you know, Presidential?

Some things are personal. We really don't need to know how many sexual partners a candidate's spouse has had or why they are married to who they are married to.

We don't even need to know whether Donald has a big penis.

We really should know what the candidate's plans are for government, preferably more detailed than they are going to be great.

For what it's worth, I don't think Hillary believes her husband is a rapist. (Nor do I believe he is, but what do I know?). By all accounts, she threw the book - well, a book - at Bill after she found out he'd lied to her over Lewinsky. But I suspect she decided it would be disloyal to divorce him - he was about to be impeached. After that, she probably couldn't be arsed and preferred to get on with her own career, which seems to be working out well for her at the moment.

Point being, they will be bringing it up in the 3rd debate because of the allegations on Trump. Thus, I think it becomes fair game to ask Hillary how she handled all of it with Bill. If she would change her view if she became President, etc....

Thus, if it's a relevant question for Trump, Hillary....again....has experience in this. Honestly, a good answer on her part could sway a lot of votes her way.

edit: I would further add that one of Hillarys most glaring weakness' is that she seems very emotionless, almost robotic and unlikeable. A good human emotional, real response could be a game changer.

[Orbitus]

but it was okay for Bill Clinton to have numerous affairs, sexually harass, and rape women? Or even pay them out of our tax dollars to rehire an unpaid intern to paid status to give him head in the oval office?

edit: that would actually be an interesting debate question for Hillary given the recent accusations against Trump, why she has stuck with Bill after all he did and how many women he had on the side.

Funny, the only one that claimed she was raped by Bill, recanted her testimony during the Paula Jones trial and now she is claiming she was raped again. Why should we believe her? Also, to claim that Bill was a rapist just by accusations alone, then Trump is a rapist as well.

[Garnier Fructis]

By the same token, a lot of people are voting Trump because they are voting against Hillary.

And I don't have a problem with that reason.

I don't think that's Garnier's point, I'm pretty confident that they are saying that this third body which is neither candidate is not a good reason to vote against X candidate. For example, saying "David Duke is voting for Donald Trump, so I'm voting for Hillary, because fuck David Duke" is not really a valid reason to not support Trump (god knows you have plenty of reasons not to support Trump as it is).

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[LilSaihah]

You think atheism is a skeleton that would be used against him when he's running as a democrat? lol.

In the democratic primaries? No, it wouldn't, and it wasn't.
In the general election? It would probably be used to galvanize the Republican base.

[Hooked]

I still 100% believe trump will win, these wikileaks are like a "death from 1000 cuts" for clinton and they are only going to get worse. The coup de grace will be when they release all of her emails from her private unsecured server on november 1st I think. She is so f'ed in the a. Sure trump talks like a drunken sailor, but hillary is so much worse in her actions.

[Macaquerie]

In the democratic primaries? No, it wouldn't, and it wasn't.
In the general election? It would probably be used to galvanize the Republican base.

This election should mark the end of the religious right as a political force for good. Trump and his supporters proved that the right wing doesn't need to use Christianity as a shield when spewing their white supremacist rhetoric and so the entire raison d'etre of the religious right has sort of evaporated. Oh I'm sure there will still be pastors out there preaching against the evils of abortion and transgender bathrooms or what have you, but the days of these people being taken seriously on the national political stage are over.

It's actually quite ironic, and supremely satisfying, that the religious right was ultimately done in by people on their own side rather than the damned dirty liberals they are always going after. And even more ironically, they also turned out to be right all along about there being people who want disclaim any belief in a higher power so that they'd have the freedom to be immoral, hedonistic dickbags, but once again, it's the pussy grabbing Trump crowd that fits that bill, not the blue-haired feminist lesbians.

[stomination]

It didn't take that long really. The general election campaign has only been going on for a few months. Or did you mean why it wasn't found before then? That's because the republicans didn't dig because the party of regressives voters liked all the sexist, racist, xenophobic crap he was coming out with. Remember when he used sexist insults against Carly Fiorina and Megan Kelley? Those didn't make his polling numbers go down, they actually went up. So why would Cruz/Rubino/etc dig into Trumps past regarding how he treats women, if whatever they revealed would most likely make him more popular among the regressive party's voters?

Its pitiful when you guys name call each other. But its interesting that none of these came out before this month. I suspect the main reason is because the smear campaign works better the closer it is to debates and election day.

[Hooked]

This election should mark the end of the religious right as a political force for good. Trump and his supporters proved that the right wing doesn't need to use Christianity as a shield when spewing their white supremacist rhetoric and so the entire raison d'etre of the religious right has sort of evaporated. Oh I'm sure there will still be pastors out there preaching against the evils of abortion and transgender bathrooms or what have you, but the days of these people being taken seriously on the national political stage are over.

It's actually quite ironic, and supremely satisfying, that the religious right was ultimately done in by people on their own side rather than the damned dirty liberals they are always going after. And even more ironically, they also turned out to be right all along about there being people who want disclaim any belief in a higher power so that they'd have the freedom to be immoral, hedonistic dickbags, but once again, it's the pussy grabbing Trump crowd that fits that bill, not the blue-haired feminist lesbians.

Hopefully we can just split into 2 countries, it would be best for all of us.

[stomination]

I have not seen anyone being kicked, hit, sucker punched, or spit on at Hillary rallies.

I agree that there is vitriol coming from both sides, but there is also some false equivalency going on.

The problem with that statement is that both sides were involved in doing that at some of those big rallies. Then there was some others at smaller ones and then there was the nevada democrat one.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully we can just split into 2 countries, it would be best for all of us.

The democrats tried that in the Civil War Huehuehue

[Hooked]

The democrats tried that in the Civil War Huehuehue

Look what the democrats will be saddled with now. The hands out and safe space crowd.